Welcome to PatsFans.com

Iran ready to strike America and Britain

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Apr 16, 2006.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,650
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    The problem with Iran is a direct result of taking out their biggest enemy (Iraq) and causing the Iranians to elect their radical right wing (their radical right, like our radical right, used fear to get elected). Up until Bush's invasion of Iraq, Iran was headed on a moderate course. The worse thing for us is that the idiot who got us into this mess is still President of our nation.

    ****

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2136638,00.html

    Iran suicide bombers ‘ready to hit Britain’

    IRAN has formed battalions of suicide bombers to strike at British and American targets if the nation’s nuclear sites are attacked. According to Iranian officials, 40,000 trained suicide bombers are ready for action.

    The main force, named the Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards, was first seen last month when members marched in a military parade, dressed in olive-green uniforms with explosive packs around their waists and detonators held high.

    Dr Hassan Abbasi, head of the Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies in the Revolutionary Guards, said in a speech that 29 western targets had been identified: “We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.” He added that some of them were “quite close” to the Iranian border in Iraq.
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,343
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +254 / 8 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Well does anyone doubt that Iran will nuke Israel within 5 years ? I don't. I'm not a big fan of WW IIII but things are going to suck over there really bad, really soon.
  3. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    I hate to say it, but it seems like that is the ultimate goal of the neo-cons. I personally doubt that Iran is any more likely to nuke Israel than the reverse. The bigger question is, who cares?
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,023
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +291 / 5 / -8

    I kind of care, given I have relatives there.

    Yeah, it's a beeeyatch. Party A drives planes into buildings. Invade Party B. Strengthen Party C in the process. Invade Party C?

    Bush's biggest problem in foreign policy is the one he cannot see - that is, he's completely oblivious to consequences. I think he sees consequences as things that naysayers bring up to get in his way; he has a reputation of being impervious to constructive criticism even within his own administration.

    The old curse applies - "may you live in interesting times."

    PFnV
  5. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,343
    Likes Received:
    122
    Ratings:
    +254 / 8 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Oh, I don't know, I suspect that just about the whole country would care and be repulsed if Iran wiped Israel off the face of the earth. Compared to taking care of the Iranian facilities while minimizing casualties the best we can, it's kind of obvious to me. The majority of Iranians are actually pro U.S., we just need to wipe out the sh!t. The only reason they elected this freak was because the Iranian government controlled who could run in the "election".
  6. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I respectfully disagree with you here NEM.

    I dont know the exact figures but I'm guessing you dont have the same amount of sheer numbers and ferocity with the Radical christian right as you do the Radical Islamists.

    And I also disagree with Patters. We took out Iran's biggest enemy but replaced them with a far more potent one on their doorstep. According to Patters' initial logic that taking out their enemy would have emboldened them as there would be no threat nearby yet the US military is on their doorstep so according to Patters' premise, they should have stood down no?

    Premise denied.
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,873
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +298 / 1 / -9

    Don't worry about Israel, they won't wait around for Patty Cake Negotiate sh!t, they will know when Iran is ready then Israel will blow them to Kingdom Come, and they won't ask for THE CROOK KOFI ANNAN'S PERMISSION.
  8. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yeah but Kofi Annan and the rest of the glorified debating society will cast many a disapproving glance towards Israel for daring to defend itself.
  9. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Thinking that Israel is the only victim here is nothing short of falling for the bs that this administration is hoping for.
    (Look up Rachel Corrie)

    The maniac, who is the Iranian President, when asked what his thoughts were concerning Israel, did spew venom and spoke vile words but never gave any indication of Iran attacking Israel who by the way, is the only country in the region that does have nukes and everybody knows it.

    You want peace in the region, you treat everyone equally and disarm everyone. As long as we keep supporting Israel right or wrong, even at times when they are the aggressor, we will be hated and there will not be peace in the region.

    Iranians have their own version of war mongers as well.
    They keep feeding their own propaganda machine with fear, scaring the daylight out of the ignorant Iranian public with threats of Israel and USA attacking them so they must be ready to fight to defend themselves when attacked.

    Iraq was a can of worms, Iran would be a giant can of boa snakes.

    We did have some support in Iraq from the Kurds, and initially from the Shiite.
    Who is going to welcome us in Iran? The Shiite who make up that country or their brothers across the border in Iraq?
    What we would accomplish is the total unification of Iranian and Iraqi Shiite and they would fight us there and here for the next 100 or so years.
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2006
  10. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,873
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +298 / 1 / -9

    I'll go along with some of that, I never could understand our Love Affair with Israel, I can understand supporting an Allie but we as Americans living in our own country, America, we wern't even allowed to whisper anything at all Negative against Israel or Jewish people if we did so we were branded Racist, Anti Semetic and if we were Celebrity's or Public Figures our lives would be ruined.

    Have you ever heard of someone being called a Racist because they have said "Germans Like Beer"

    Try saying "Jews Know How To Make Money" Oh Jesus.

    BUT, Israel will take care of Iran, and say what you will about Bush and I am becoming disappointed with him (Illegal Aliens & Arabs) if that Smelly Little Sh!t Ba stard that runs Iran attacks anything American Bush will strike back, just hours later, if Iran uses Nukes Bush will Nuke Iran, you can bet on it.
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,023
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +291 / 5 / -8

    Who told you Israel has nukes? They never said that.

    But seriously, folks... if the U.S. did not perceive itself as needing a foreign policy ally in the region, I don't think the relationship exists. For decades, the U.S. policy in the region revolved around two steady allies, Israel and Iran. when the Shah fell, it pivoted to Israel and Egypt.

    Now, if the U.S. weren't concerned with the disposition of middle eastern fossil fuels, primarily for our European and Japanese clients, I could see where the argument could hinge on Israel. But there's a symbiotic relationship there, and you'd be something short of the short-bus if you believed the U.S. concern with the middle east had to do with Israel.

    PFnV
  12. gomezcat

    gomezcat It's SIR Moderator to you Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,551
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Oh well, at least it will bring down house prices in London and the other major cities. Time to get paranoid about blokes with rucksacks and beards again; I was getting far too complacent, travelling on the Tube. :D

    This does worry me, but it seems that there isn't much we can do about it if they do attack. Anyone living in a major city deals with all sorts of risks every day and it gets to the point where I start to feel quite resigned about the whole thing, if I'm honest. I also get the sense that the propaganda war is being stepped up, as happened pre Iraq: "suicide bombers: see, this is why we have to stop them".
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2006
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    The US cares about Israel because of the Holocaust. The UN, led by the US, fully enabled the very establishment of Israel immediately after WWII. Also, the US leadership, dominated by a "Christian" philosophy that is derived largely from Jewish tradition, has a direct connection to the welfare of Israel and the desire to see the fulfillment of the Book of Revelation in their lifetime, which demands the destruction of Israel in order to fulfill prophesy, as was stated by NEM.

    Also, the real partner in the oil aspect of ME geopolitics is none other than our "good friends", the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Egypt is now a secondary player and will soon be over-run by Islamic fundamentalists if a true democracy is ever put into place there.
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,650
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Israel is probably quite important to us now because we are despised in the region. Even if we adopted a neutral policy towards Israel (which we should), there would still be a lot of resentment towards us. In addition, one gets the feeling that Israel iprovides us with a lot of intelligence about terrorists. And the final point is, we can't ignore the fact that Israel has a lot of support in the U.S. among Jews, evangelicals, and those who fear Islam. So, whatever you think of our support for Israel, it's likely Israel will continue to get broad-based support for the U.S.

    Turd, as far as your points go. We haven't replaced Iraq with a potent regime as of yet. If we succeed, things could work out in our favor, but right now, Iraq is an extremely weak and nearly dysfunctional. By taking out Iraq as a direct military threat to Iran -- and we did this not only by defeating Saddam but by allowing the majority Shiites to assume power -- we've allowed Iran to devote more of its military resources to things like nuclear weapons and less to protecting its borders from Saddam's army.

    How we're going to deal with the Iran situation is certainly beyond the skills of Mr. Bush, but perhaps Russia, the EU, and the UN can figure something out. If Bush takes the lead, we're sure to a large scale disaster.
  15. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yes, Iraq is extremely weak but as of right now, WE are on the Iranian border.
  16. RoadGrader

    RoadGrader Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    NEM.....

    I fixed your post....

  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,650
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    I think Iran prefers us to Saddam because in Iraq we are allied with Iran's likely allies and our troops are in no position to launch an attack on Iran. If we went to war with Iran, I think our Shiite allies in Iraq would not welcome us using Iraqi territory, and if we did, we might find ourselves fighting Iran and losing Iraq.
  18. Brick

    Brick Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Israel will act alone if it has to and take out as many Nuke sites as they can, they'll also have to take out some Iranian miliatry targets because Iran will unleash hell on them at that point. Iran is probably hoping for a military strike on them so they can pound Israel and claim self defense.

    If Israel feels they are about to be annihilated I have no doubt whatsoever they will Nuke Iran. The scary part is Iran probaly already knows this and does not care.
  19. Turk

    Turk Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Look at who are at the highest levels of legal and financial institutions, media and your beloved Hollywood:)
    Look at which lobby is huge in this country and extremely powerful.
  20. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,023
    Likes Received:
    185
    Ratings:
    +291 / 5 / -8

    Your penultimate point, that the Saudis are also an important partner of U.S. interests in the middle east, is a good one. Kudos. The remainder of the post, however, bears little resemblence to history or current political reality.

    The fairly common error of attributing the existence of Israel to the action of the U.N. - otherwise considered a powerless "debating society," except as regards to Israel - is as banal as it is widespread.

    The partition of '48 was not enforced by an American military action; to the contrary, during the buildup to the war all sides knew was coming, while pre-existing Arab nations (primarily Transjordan and Egypt) were able to purchase arms as usual, the Jewish population of what became Israel was under embargo by the British. To even purchase arms for self defense meant doing so on the black market, just as the very act of emigrating to Israel was, in most cases, still illegal. By and large the Yishuv won that war because they wanted it more, and conceived of themselves as a people, whereas the arab countries fighting for what later were called the Palestinians, were fighting on and for foreign soil. (A bit of trivia - all Arab parties refused to ackowledge an Arab country of Palestine until after Israel's existence, and indeed, until after Israel occupied all land that would comprise said entity.)

    The emigration and arm blockades were, of course, in force during the second world war as well, a continuation of British policy of "not antagonizing the Arab population," dating back to the 1920s, when the first wide scale Arab-Jewish violence began.

    I don't wish to go through the entirety of the history of the conflict, but to represent the Jewish state as "foisted" on the region by the United States backing up the will of the U.N. is pure gibberish, despite Truman's sympathies. The only military forces that entered the former Palestine mandate during this war were from Arab nations such as Egypt, Lebanon, Transjordan, Syria, and Iraq.

    The notion that "The U.S. cares about Israel because of the Holocaust," similarly, casts the American relationship with Israel in terms of sentimentality, whereas other foreign policy matters are decided in terms of realpolitik. To the credit of your worldview, you are at least consistent here, making the entirety of U.S. interest in the middle east a matter of religious conviction on the part of the current sitting president, a matter of holocaust sympathy on the part of the public at large, and a matter of U.N. interference at its inception. I must admit, there is quite a fabric woven here, although how it withstands the vicissitudes of a six decade alliance, if both nations' interests are not being served, is beyond me.

    By the way, I'm a realist and a bit of a student of history, not a flag waver of any variety. I do think a state for Palestinians is in the interests of the entire region. I do not think, however, that the U.S.'s troubles in the middle east begin or end with Israel (Israel barely gets second billing from bin laden et al; their concern is purging the Arabian penninsula, then of all Islam, of America's presence.)

    As regards statements like "Jews like money," of course some people will get prickly about that. It's just a bizarre statement. You mean Catholics don't like money? Protestants? Muslims? How quickly do the counterexamples spring to mind? But from my point of view, I'd rather trot out all the silly stereotypes and show them for what they are, than live in a touchy, uptight country. Sorry to all about the length of the post. I hope some here found it enlightening; short of getting all touchy (see above,) real information is the only antidote to myth.

    PFnV
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2006

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>